外科医生对脊柱导航的认知:影响脊柱导航技术缺乏采用的关键因素分析

Alexander D. Choo , Gilad Regev MD , Steven R. Garfin MD , Choll W. Kim MD, PhD
{"title":"外科医生对脊柱导航的认知:影响脊柱导航技术缺乏采用的关键因素分析","authors":"Alexander D. Choo ,&nbsp;Gilad Regev MD ,&nbsp;Steven R. Garfin MD ,&nbsp;Choll W. Kim MD, PhD","doi":"10.1016/S1935-9810(08)70038-0","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><p>Computer-assisted spinal navigation allows for real time localization of surgical instruments in multiple views. Its use decreases radiation exposure and clears the surgical field of the C-arm fluoroscope. Despite these advantages, spinal navigation has yet to gain general acceptance among spine surgeons. The purpose of this study is to survey spine surgeons about their opinions on the strengths and weaknesses of spinal navigation.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>Spine surgeons from the membership of the Spine Arthroplasty Society (SAS) and the Society for Minimally Invasive Spine Surgery (SMISS) were surveyed regarding their current use of spinal navigation and their perceptions of the strengths and weaknesses of spinal navigation (N<!--> <!-->=<!--> <!-->147). Responses were analyzed using 2-sided chi-square tests.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>Most spine surgeons (63.4%) have only superficial experience with spinal navigation, and 76.2% of surgeons rarely use spinal navigation in their cases. Spine surgeons have the most experience with virtual fluoroscopy spinal navigation systems (35.9%). Surgeons considered longer operating times (63.5%), increased cost (48.3%), lack of necessity (40.7%), unreliable navigation accuracy (37.9%), and too many intraoperative glitches (35.2%) to be the major weaknesses of spinal navigation.</p><p>Surgeons considered decreased radiation exposure to the surgeon (76.1%), increased screw placement accuracy (65.7%), decreased radiation exposure to the patient (41.8%), and keeping the C-arm away from the operating field (29.1%) to be the greatest advantages of spinal navigation. Among the types of procedures surgeons believe are most likely to benefit from spinal navigation are minimally invasive instrumentation and fusion (72.5%) and complex open deformity (55.6%).</p></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><p>Most spine surgeons have only superficial experience in spinal navigation. The most commonly selected weaknesses of spinal navigation are increased operative time, cost, and lack of necessity. Increased fluoroscopy and MIS use in the future may shift focus from weaknesses to the strengths of spinal navigation, including decreased radiation exposure and elimination of the C-arm from the operative field.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":88695,"journal":{"name":"SAS journal","volume":"2 4","pages":"Pages 189-194"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2008-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1016/S1935-9810(08)70038-0","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Surgeons’ Perceptions of Spinal Navigation: Analysis of Key Factors Affecting the Lack of Adoption of Spinal Navigation Technology\",\"authors\":\"Alexander D. Choo ,&nbsp;Gilad Regev MD ,&nbsp;Steven R. Garfin MD ,&nbsp;Choll W. Kim MD, PhD\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/S1935-9810(08)70038-0\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><h3>Background</h3><p>Computer-assisted spinal navigation allows for real time localization of surgical instruments in multiple views. Its use decreases radiation exposure and clears the surgical field of the C-arm fluoroscope. Despite these advantages, spinal navigation has yet to gain general acceptance among spine surgeons. The purpose of this study is to survey spine surgeons about their opinions on the strengths and weaknesses of spinal navigation.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>Spine surgeons from the membership of the Spine Arthroplasty Society (SAS) and the Society for Minimally Invasive Spine Surgery (SMISS) were surveyed regarding their current use of spinal navigation and their perceptions of the strengths and weaknesses of spinal navigation (N<!--> <!-->=<!--> <!-->147). Responses were analyzed using 2-sided chi-square tests.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>Most spine surgeons (63.4%) have only superficial experience with spinal navigation, and 76.2% of surgeons rarely use spinal navigation in their cases. Spine surgeons have the most experience with virtual fluoroscopy spinal navigation systems (35.9%). Surgeons considered longer operating times (63.5%), increased cost (48.3%), lack of necessity (40.7%), unreliable navigation accuracy (37.9%), and too many intraoperative glitches (35.2%) to be the major weaknesses of spinal navigation.</p><p>Surgeons considered decreased radiation exposure to the surgeon (76.1%), increased screw placement accuracy (65.7%), decreased radiation exposure to the patient (41.8%), and keeping the C-arm away from the operating field (29.1%) to be the greatest advantages of spinal navigation. Among the types of procedures surgeons believe are most likely to benefit from spinal navigation are minimally invasive instrumentation and fusion (72.5%) and complex open deformity (55.6%).</p></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><p>Most spine surgeons have only superficial experience in spinal navigation. The most commonly selected weaknesses of spinal navigation are increased operative time, cost, and lack of necessity. Increased fluoroscopy and MIS use in the future may shift focus from weaknesses to the strengths of spinal navigation, including decreased radiation exposure and elimination of the C-arm from the operative field.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":88695,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"SAS journal\",\"volume\":\"2 4\",\"pages\":\"Pages 189-194\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2008-12-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1016/S1935-9810(08)70038-0\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"SAS journal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1935981008700380\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"SAS journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1935981008700380","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

计算机辅助脊柱导航允许在多个视图中实时定位手术器械。它的使用减少了辐射暴露,并清除了c臂透视镜的手术视野。尽管有这些优点,脊柱导航还没有得到脊柱外科医生的普遍接受。本研究的目的是调查脊柱外科医生对脊柱导航的优缺点的看法。方法对来自脊柱关节成形术学会(SAS)和微创脊柱外科学会(SMISS)会员的脊柱外科医生进行调查,了解他们目前使用脊柱导航的情况以及他们对脊柱导航的优缺点的看法(N = 147)。采用双侧卡方检验对反应进行分析。结果大多数脊柱外科医生(63.4%)对脊柱导航仅有浅表经验,76.2%的外科医生很少使用脊柱导航。脊柱外科医生使用虚拟透视脊柱导航系统的经验最多(35.9%)。外科医生认为脊柱导航的主要缺点是手术时间长(63.5%)、费用增加(48.3%)、缺乏必要性(40.7%)、导航精度不可靠(37.9%)和术中故障过多(35.2%)。外科医生认为脊柱导航的最大优点是减少了对外科医生的辐射暴露(76.1%),提高了螺钉放置的准确性(65.7%),减少了对患者的辐射暴露(41.8%),使c型臂远离手术视野(29.1%)。外科医生认为最有可能从脊柱导航中获益的手术类型是微创内固定和融合(72.5%)和复杂开放畸形(55.6%)。结论大多数脊柱外科医生在脊柱导航方面经验浅薄。脊柱导航术最常见的缺点是增加手术时间、费用和缺乏必要性。未来增加透视检查和MIS的使用可能会将焦点从脊柱导航的弱点转移到优势,包括减少辐射暴露和从手术视野中消除c臂。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Surgeons’ Perceptions of Spinal Navigation: Analysis of Key Factors Affecting the Lack of Adoption of Spinal Navigation Technology

Background

Computer-assisted spinal navigation allows for real time localization of surgical instruments in multiple views. Its use decreases radiation exposure and clears the surgical field of the C-arm fluoroscope. Despite these advantages, spinal navigation has yet to gain general acceptance among spine surgeons. The purpose of this study is to survey spine surgeons about their opinions on the strengths and weaknesses of spinal navigation.

Methods

Spine surgeons from the membership of the Spine Arthroplasty Society (SAS) and the Society for Minimally Invasive Spine Surgery (SMISS) were surveyed regarding their current use of spinal navigation and their perceptions of the strengths and weaknesses of spinal navigation (N = 147). Responses were analyzed using 2-sided chi-square tests.

Results

Most spine surgeons (63.4%) have only superficial experience with spinal navigation, and 76.2% of surgeons rarely use spinal navigation in their cases. Spine surgeons have the most experience with virtual fluoroscopy spinal navigation systems (35.9%). Surgeons considered longer operating times (63.5%), increased cost (48.3%), lack of necessity (40.7%), unreliable navigation accuracy (37.9%), and too many intraoperative glitches (35.2%) to be the major weaknesses of spinal navigation.

Surgeons considered decreased radiation exposure to the surgeon (76.1%), increased screw placement accuracy (65.7%), decreased radiation exposure to the patient (41.8%), and keeping the C-arm away from the operating field (29.1%) to be the greatest advantages of spinal navigation. Among the types of procedures surgeons believe are most likely to benefit from spinal navigation are minimally invasive instrumentation and fusion (72.5%) and complex open deformity (55.6%).

Conclusion

Most spine surgeons have only superficial experience in spinal navigation. The most commonly selected weaknesses of spinal navigation are increased operative time, cost, and lack of necessity. Increased fluoroscopy and MIS use in the future may shift focus from weaknesses to the strengths of spinal navigation, including decreased radiation exposure and elimination of the C-arm from the operative field.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Preclinical and clinical experience with a viscoelastic total disc replacement Kineflex lumbar artificial disc versus Charité lumbar total disc replacement for the treatment of degenerative disc disease: A randomized non-inferiority trial with minimum of 2 years' follow-up Vertebral augmentation treatment of painful osteoporotic compression fractures with the Kiva VCF Treatment System Effects of preoperative education on spinal surgery patients An attempt at clinically defining and assessing minimally invasive surgery compared with traditional “open” spinal surgery
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1